Case title:
Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Shashi Mohan Kapur (deceased)
Date of Order:
15 July 2019
Bench:
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'Ble Ms. Malhotra
Parties:
Appellant – Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent - Shashi Mohan Kapur (Deceased) Thr. L.R.
SUBJECT
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a fundamental legislation that governs the procedure to be followed in civil courts in India. Enacted on 21st March 1908, this code serves as the backbone of the civil justice system in the country. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 outlines the jurisdiction of different courts, the process of initiating a lawsuit, the manner of presenting evidence, the conduct of trials, and the execution of judgments. Order 21 provides for the execution of decrees and orders issued by civil courts in India. It lays down the procedures and mechanisms to be followed for the enforcement of judgments.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order 20
- Order 21 Rule 2
- Order 21 Rule 10
- Order 21 Rule 11
OVERVIEW
- The dispute arose between the appellant (decree holder) and the respondent (judgment debtor) out of execution proceedings in Civil Suit No. 369/2009.
- The appellant is the landlord of Flat G81, IInd floor along with one Servant Quarter J362, IIIrd floor ("suit house”).
- The suit house was lent out to the father of the original respondent, who died on 13.07.2007.
- The appellant issued another quit notice to the respondent, but even then he did not vacate the suit house.
- In 2009, the appellant initiated a Civil Suit (Old No.369/2009) against the respondent in the Court of ADJ for his eviction from the suit house and the mesne profits.
- Following this, the parties entered into a compromise, where the respondent agreed to vacate the house and pay Rs.5,000/ per month towards user charges till the date of handing over of the suit house to the appellant.
- The respondent also agreed not to sublet the house to any third party.
- However, in 2016 the respondent filed an application seeking to extend the time to vacate the house on medical grounds
- The said application was allowed by the Trial court and the time to vacate was extended till 15.07.2016
- The respondent once again failed to vacate the house on time and the appellant filed an execution petition for execution of the consent decree against the respondent.
- The Executing Court issued a warrant of possession against the respondent for the suit house. The appellant further applied to the court to provide police assistance in obtaining possession of the suit house.
- Thereafter, the respondent filed four applications challenging the executability of the consent order as it was null and void. These applications were dismissed by the executing court.
- The respondent then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Executing Court order.
- Aggrieved by the Delhi High Court decision, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Apex Court of India.
ISSUE RAISED
- Was the High Court justified in allowing the respondent's appeal and, therefore, was justified in holding that the Execution Petition filed by the appellant (5655/2016) was not maintainable for a want of formal decree after passing the order of 01.06.2012?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Advocates Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appeared on behalf of the respondent.
- The main contention of the respondent was that the executability of the consent order dated 01.06.2012 is null and void.
- It was asserted that the consent order was obtained by the appellants by suppressing relevant facts which amounted to fraud.
- The counsel submitted that no decree was passed by the Trial Court after passing the consent order dated 01.06.2012.
- It was also put forth by the counsels that given Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the suit in which the consent order dated 01.06.2012 was passed was not maintainable.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India allowed the present appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court order.
- The bench held that the Delhi High Court erroneously held that, without a formal decree not being drawn or filed, the appellant had no right to file the execution petition.
- The court noted that the issue, in this case, should be resolved by considering Order 20 Rule 6, Order 20 Rule 6A, Order 20 Rule 7, Order 21 Rules 11(2) & (3), and Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
- It was observed that while Order 20 of the Code contains provisions for filing appeals without including a copy of the decree with the judgment and also provides consequences for not drawing up the decree, it seems to us that the principle outlined in Rule 6A(2) can also be applied to the filing of an execution application under Order 21 Rule 2.
- The court pointed out that Order 21 Rule 11(2) of the Code provides that only the decree holder is required to give details of the judgment and the decree in the execution application
- Order 21 Rule 11(3) of the Code was also interpreted to hold that it is specified in the provision that the court “may” require the decree-holder to produce a certified copy of the decree. This is a clear indication that it is not mandatory to file a copy of the decree along with the execution application unless directed by the court.
- The court finally ruled that once the execution application specifies the details of the decree under Order 21 Rule 11(2)(c) and the certified copy of the decree is filed, if required under Order 21 Rule 11(3) of the Code, the order of the Executing Court dated 22.10.2018 will be enforced against the respondent, including the modification made regarding the payment of costs amount.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of India pronounced valuable principles concerning the execution of civil decrees. The bench comprising Hon'Ble Abhay Manohar Sapre, and Hon'Ble Ms. Malhotra framed three essentials that must be considered before the decree-holder makes an application for execution of any decree. The first requirement is that the written application filed under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 (2) of the Code must be signed and verified by the applicant or any person, who is well-versed in the facts of the case, to the satisfaction of the Court. The second requirement is that the application must include all the details mentioned in clauses (a) to (j) of Rule 11(2) of the Code. The third and final requirement is that a certified copy of the decree is only to be filed if the decree-holder is directed to do so under Order 21, Rule 11(3) of the Code by the court
